ALD-111-E

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 13-4792
___________
IN RE: DIMITRIOS MITCH FATOUROS,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.C. Civil No. 2:13-cv-04639)
District Judge: Honorable Claire C. Cecchi
____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

December 27, 2013
Before: RENDELL, FISHER and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: January 10, 2014)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Dimitrios Fatouros petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to terminate a motion to
dismiss that is pending in the District Court. For the reasons that follow, we will deny
Fatouross mandamus petition and accompanying counsel motion.

I.
In July 2013, Fatouros filed a complaint pro se against Emmanuel Lambrakis,
Artemios Sorras, and ten John Doe defendants, raising claims of libel, slander, and
defamation. Sorras filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which is pending in the
District Court. Thereafter, the District Court ordered Fatouros to file any response to the
motion by January 14, 2014.
Fatouros argues that because Sorras is not a United States citizen or resident, has
not yet been served with a summons, and failed to provide contact information pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a), we should issue a writ of mandamus requiring the District Court
to terminate Sorrass motion to dismiss the complaint. Fatouros has also filed a motion
for appointment of counsel.
II.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in the most extraordinary of
circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Fatouros must
demonstrate that (1) no other adequate means [exist] to attain the relief he desires, (2)
[his] right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate
under the circumstances. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Fatouros cannot make such a showing because he has other adequate means to
challenge Sorrass motion to dismiss the complaint. The District Court has not even
ruled on the motion; Fatouros can thus raise in response to the motion the same
arguments he raises in his mandamus petition. Moreover, Fatouros may seek appellate
2

review if the pending motion to dismiss is ultimately granted. See In re Chambers Dev.
Co., 148 F.3d 214, 223 (3d Cir. 1998) ([A] writ of mandamus should not be issued
where relief may be obtained through an ordinary appeal.). Thus, mandamus is not
appropriate.
Accordingly, because Fatouros cannot demonstrate extraordinary circumstances
justifying a writ of mandamus, we will deny his petition. We will deny the motion for
appointment of counsel as moot.